Coronavirus, lockdown, constitution, Soros, and immigrants. How is Orbán faking a direct democracy?

The questions concerned whether Hungarians resist EU pressure for changes in their migration policy, amongst other topics. The slogan of the plebiscite was ‘Let’s stop Brussels’. The next plebiscite focused on the Soros plan, which aimed at bringing a million illegal migrants to the EU to build a parallel society that would, in turn, wage cultural wars against Europeans. A certain style of preparing survey sheets is a distinctive feature. Responses inconsistent with the government’s stance were, for example: ‘let’s accept that it is Brussels that dictates tax rates,’ ‘let’s leave it to [NGOs] to continue their risky activities in an uncontrolled manner.’ The statements in line with the government’s stance were as follows: ‘the decision regarding the future of our economy should be made by us, the Hungarians,’ or ‘we demand that it is the Hungarians who decide on the tax rate.’

On 31 August 2020, another national consultation was completed in Hungary. This is an initiative considered by the Hungarian authorities as the best proof that democracy in Hungary is doing great. How can one deem a country undemocratic if the authorities send out a questionnaire to all citizens every year, and sometimes even several times a year, asking their opinion on the most important political issues?

National consultations are, in a way, a substitute for a referendum, but do not include a plebiscite. In practice, the result of national consultations has not even the slightest importance as it is basically only the electorate of the Fidesz-KDNP coalition that participates in them, and therefore their outcome is in line with the government’s expectations. Coming to power a decade ago, Viktor Orbán formalised a new type of social contract he proposed himself, called the National System of Cooperation (abbreviated in Hungarian to 'NER’). This political idea was institutionalised with a law and a regulation adopted by the Parliament. To this day, it is interpreted as an unlimited policy mandate given to the Prime Minister, the government and the 'super-majority’ of Fidesz-KDNP, which authorises political decisions that implement the will of the people, the realisation of which cannot be restricted in any way. Due to this approach, the Fidesz has not published election programmes for a decade, claiming that the Hungarians know they are voting to maintain the state built according to NER principles.

This year’s edition of national consultations was attended by more than 1 million 793 thousand people who filled in their questionnaires either online or via traditional mail, returning them at the government’s expense. In the last parliamentary elections of 2018, almost 3 million people voted in favour of the Fidesz-KNDP coalition. Allowing a simplification, it means that less than 60% of them decided to participate in this event which is important for the Prime Minister.

Noble beginnings

But let’s start from the beginning.

When Viktor Orbán was still in opposition, he accused the then social democratic and liberal coalition of being insensitive to the voice of Hungarians. In 2005, he called for something like a public hearing where Hungarians could express their views on government policy between elections, without having to hold costly referenda.

The year 2005 was proclaimed by the then leader of the opposition as the ‘year of national consultations.’ It was then that the Hungarians first received questionnaires by post. Let us emphasise – Fidesz was an opposition party at the time.

Five years later, when Fidesz came to power, the ‘national consultations’ became a fixed part of the Hungarian landscape, meaning both the political landscape and that which is literally understood – referring to the posters promoting consultations that can be regularly seen on the streets.

The participation does not count, but the result does

The questionnaires are sent to people who are registered in the Hungarian registration office. Therefore, this group includes both Hungarian citizens and people who came to Hungary, for instance, to work there. It seems bizarre that these are also people that do not have or have been deprived of electoral rights, and therefore it is difficult to believe that their participation in national consultations gives them the mandate to legitimise the actions of the Hungarian government.

In practice, several million letters are sent out, which are given priority by the authorities – i.e. they take precedence over all other correspondence. This also applies to return letters sent at the expense of the State Treasury.

The questionnaires can be sent back in person by post, but they can also be completed on the Internet. The latter method is very controversial because the form can be filled in without the need to verify the respondent’s personal data. This means that you can fill in this survey with any type of data. Screenshots were published on the Internet, showing people filling in the questionnaires using the data of Hungarian national heroes. What is more, the number of paper questionnaires is quantifiable, and so they are sent to peoples with both Hungarian citizenship and right of residence. This is a specific number, but it is not divulged. Let’s assume that it will amount to about 8 million questionnaires. However, it is possible to send the survey back by traditional mail and to fill it in on the Internet at the same time. Therefore, hypothetically more than 16 million people could take part in the consultations. The Hungarian government does not disclose the number of questionnaires received, breaking it down into traditional and Internet questionnaires. Nor does it publish the number of questionnaires received both by post and online, which have been filled in using false data. This means that, in fact, we do not know how big the sample is.

The government communicates that national consultations are a survey of public opinion conducted on a large, representative sample. The problem is that, methodologically, this sample is impossible to define, which is to the government’s liking.

The number of people who take part does not seem to be crucial – at least from the point of view of the Hungarian government. Some consultations were answered by only several hundred thousand people. Other consultations were answered by as many as 2 million. Each time, the result of national consultations is presented as a mandate to legitimise the government’s policy.

Instead of a referendum

The results of the consultations have so far always been consistent with the government’s line. It can be assumed with a high degree of probability that it is mainly the supporters of the Prime Minister that participate in them.

During the dispute between Budapest and Brussels over the immigration quota, Viktor Orbán took boxes of questionnaires with him to the EU summit to make it clear to EU politicians that he had the support of Hungarians. The supporters of the government, as well as the politicians of the coalition themselves, base their communication solely on the results showing the percentage of people supporting the government. For example, 91% of Hungarians supposedly supported the adoption of the new constitution.

At the time, the Hungarian Prime Minister explained that there was no need for a referendum because Hungarians received a questionnaire as part of the ‘national consultation’. Of the eight million 12-point questionnaires sent out, just over a million people replied. If we treated the PM’s remark on the referendum literally, the turnout in the 'referendum’ was that of 12.5%.

It is worth mentioning that the issue of the constitution aroused so much of a stir in the political discourse that the mode of adopting legislative changes began to be referred to as the ‘Fidesz Constitution’. Representatives of the opposition did not take part in committee work, and representatives of the left-wing parties were absent during the voting in the National Assembly.

On every (controversial) topic

The most famous national consultations were those related to George Soros (György Soros). They were widely echoed in foreign media. At that time, the Hungarian authorities were accused of anti-Semitism, which was to be proved, among other things, by the stickers in the Hungarian subway encouraging the Hungarian citizens to participate in the consultations. They were placed on the ground, so the passengers literally trampled on Soros.

Over the years, the national consultations concerned the pension system (2010), a year later the new Basic Law and social issues (including foreign currency loans, support for education), and the following year – economic issues, such as wages and minimum pensions.

Particularly important for the authorities were the consultations held in 2015 on immigration and terrorism. The connection between the two elements was obviously not accidental. It was then that outdoor billboards were used, which is currently the norm. They have a distinctive design – on the blue background there is a yellow inscription informing about national consultations, and in white, bold letters one can read the slogans: ‘Your country, your voice’ (2020), ‘Soros Plan. We will not be speechless’ (2017), ‘Let’s stop Brussels!’ (2017).

In October 2016, a referendum was held, in which Hungarians were to express their opinion on rejecting the system of the relocation of migrants. Due to low attendance, it was invalid, but this had no effect on government policy. Orbán described 2017 as the year of battling the European Union. That is why in 2017 the consultations took place twice, in spring and autumn.

Questions in the spring included whether Hungarians reject Brussels’ pressure on changes in migration and energy policies. The latter was to lead to a significant increase in energy prices in Hungary. The slogan of this plebiscite was ‘Let’s stop Brussels.’ In the autumn, there was talk of a Soros plan to bring a million illegal migrants to the EU to build a parallel society that would, in turn, wage cultural wars with Europeans. A year ago, the Hungarians were asked whether the state should protect the family and whether social support from the state should still depend on the parent working.

A characteristic feature of the questionnaire is a certain style of preparing the sheets, which overtly suggests an answer. In 2017, during the consultations, the answers that were not in line with the government’s stance were as follows: ‘Let’s accept that it is Brussels that dictates the tax rates’, ‘Let’s allow [the NGOs] to continue to carry on with their risky activities in an uncontrolled manner’], the statements that followed the government’s line were as follows: ‘We demand that it be the Hungarians who decide on the level of taxes.’

Pretend direct democracy

The consultations completed at the end of the holiday period were devoted to fighting the coronavirus and restarting the economy. In the first question, the authors asked which of the limitations they indicated would be tolerated by the Hungarians if another lockdown was necessary. The following questions examined the opinion of Hungarians on whether care homes for the elderly should be specially protected, whether children and teachers should have free Internet access due to the need for distance learning and whether foreign companies and banks should contribute to a fund to fight the coronavirus (which, by the way, is already happening).

Finally, there is talk of the Soros Plan, concerning the EU funds that were to be used to help the European economy following the crisis. According to the authors of the questionnaire, this is the implementation of the Soros Plan, which is for countries to get into debt with speculators and then pay their debts over the coming generations. This thought is reflected here in a literal way.

It is difficult to count how many editions of national consultations have already been conducted. This is related to the different methods of counting them; we can assume that the latest ones will be assigned number 10 or 11. The government is spending huge sums on campaigns related to national consultations. What are they exactly? It is difficult to establish as the authorities continually refuse to disclose such data. In mid-July, a summary of the costs incurred by the state authorities in carrying out national consultations was published. It concerns the period 2016–2020 and includes part of the costs of this year’s national consultations. Why not all of it? The deadline to end current consultations has already been extended twice.

The total expenditure amounts to HUF 7.5 billion, i.e. almost 94 million PLN. However, expenditure incurred between 2010 and 2016 is not included, above all the 2015 consultation on immigration and terrorism. According to the available data, the most expensive national consultations took place in 2017 and concerned the consultations on Soros. Significantly, the expenditure published on government websites is not broken down into individual components. However, it is certain that the largest part of these funds is spent on the advertising campaign on TV, in the press, on the Internet, as well as radio or outdoor advertising.

National consultations have become a political tool, legitimising the actions of the authorities, but also a way to subsidise both the Hungarian post office and the media that are sympathetic to the government. The political essence of the national consultations is that the Hungarian authorities, accused of authoritarianism, stress that they use the tools of direct democracy. They also play an essential role in political discourse by emphasising that by listening to the citizens’ opinion, they are given the mandate to continue the policies pursued by the government. It is also, as indicated earlier, a bargaining chip in negotiations on immigration policy at the EU level. The recent national consultations, according to the government, determine the government’s policy towards the coronavirus, especially in the area of restrictions accepted by the Hungarians, used to slow down the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Polish version is available here.